OBJECTIVE: To examine the values of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) on diagnosis and treatment of esophageal hamartoma. METHODS: We compared and analyzed various kinds of imaging examinations such as barium esophagram, contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) and conventional gastroscopy in retrospectively reviewing the clinical data of an esophageal hamartoma patient seen in our clinic in the First Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China. Having received various imaging examinations, this patient was finally diagnosed with esophageal hamartoma and underwent gastroscopic resection of hamartoma with the diagnostic information obtained from EUS. The patient had been regularly followed up for 13 months after treatment. RESULTS: Barium esophagram, CT and conventional gastroscopy detected the lesion, but were unable to distinguish it from common esophagopolypus and other submucosal lesions, and unable to determine etiopathogenisis. EUS detected the hamartoma and identified its internal structure, echo, exact size, depth of invasion, origin and the relationship between adjacent tissues and organs, differentiating the lesion from other submucosal tumors and clearly defining the diagnosis. EUS-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) also helped to identify the etiological diagnosis. CONCLUSION: EUS was superior to other imaging means in diagnosis and treatment of hamartoma.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the values of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) on diagnosis and treatment of esophageal hamartoma. METHODS: We compared and analyzed various kinds of imaging examinations such as barium esophagram, contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) and conventional gastroscopy in retrospectively reviewing the clinical data of an esophageal hamartomapatient seen in our clinic in the First Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China. Having received various imaging examinations, this patient was finally diagnosed with esophageal hamartoma and underwent gastroscopic resection of hamartoma with the diagnostic information obtained from EUS. The patient had been regularly followed up for 13 months after treatment. RESULTS: Barium esophagram, CT and conventional gastroscopy detected the lesion, but were unable to distinguish it from common esophagopolypus and other submucosal lesions, and unable to determine etiopathogenisis. EUS detected the hamartoma and identified its internal structure, echo, exact size, depth of invasion, origin and the relationship between adjacent tissues and organs, differentiating the lesion from other submucosal tumors and clearly defining the diagnosis. EUS-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) also helped to identify the etiological diagnosis. CONCLUSION: EUS was superior to other imaging means in diagnosis and treatment of hamartoma.
Authors: F Gress; C Schmitt; T Savides; D O Faigel; M Catalano; W Wassef; L Roubein; N Nickl; D Ciaccia; M Bhutani; B Hoffman; J Affronti Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2001-01 Impact factor: 9.427